Fewer than one in six have Covid-19 antibody protection suggests Patrick Vallance

Support us and go ad-free

Fewer than one in six people have any sort of antibody protection to Covid-19, England’s chief scientific adviser has said.

Patrick Vallance told MPs on the Health and Social Care Committee that data from around five weeks ago suggested “something like a 10% antibody positivity in London”, with 3% to 4% antibody positivity in other regions and even less in some areas.

At the current time, he said he would “not expect to see antibody levels much above mid-teens” in any region. This suggests fewer than one in six people have had coronavirus.

Vallance said that while the R number – the number of other people infected by each person with coronavirus – is below one across the country, prevalence of infection will be different depending on region.

This could suggest ways in which lockdown restrictions may be eased in some areas and not others.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Vallance said: “We know that cities and densely-populated places have a higher prevalence than rural places… and an option that could be considered is to think about whether measures could be done locally versus nationally.”

But that could lead to difficulties, such as whether people could use public transport to travel, he added.

Vallance said: “Once you go to a regional approach, you effectively are saying that you are going to demarcate regions very carefully and you’ve got to control the flow between regions. But that is a possibility.”

On immunity, Vallance said evidence from around the world suggests the vast majority of people who have had the infection have “some form of antibody response” and therefore develop “some degree of protection”.

But he said the exact amount of immunity people developed is not known, adding that they “almost certainly” will not go on to have absolute immunity.

It is also unknown whether people who have had the virus can still carry it in the future and pass it on, he said.

Giving a potential timeframe for how long immunity might last based on experience from other coronaviruses, he said: “It may last for one, two, three years, but not for many, many years.”

Vallance said scientists have now been able to “sequence thousands and thousands of viral genomes” when looking at Covid-19, and found cases came from Europe.

“One of the things that it looks like, very clearly, is that early in March the UK got many, many different imports of virus from many different places,” he said.

“And those places were particularly from European countries with outbreaks.

“And so we see a big influx of cases, probably from Italy and Spain looking at the genomics of the virus in early March, seeded right the way across the country, and so whether that was people returning from half-term, whether it’s business travellers or not we don’t know, but a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China and didn’t come from the places you might have expected.

“They actually came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK around that time.”

Vallance said the risk of a second peak of Covid-19 is “very real” but could be avoided if test, track and trace is implemented successfully and social distancing continues.

He told MPs: “Clearly what you’d like to do, from a pure science perspective, is having got this under control, the test and track tracing takes more of a heavy lifting than the social distancing measures.”

He said using test, track and trace to keep the virus down would allow the removal of some of the “social distancing levels”.

He added: “But what, in any event, I think is important is not to get into a position where you get the R above one to get a second peak.

“Where you choose to set that level, I think, is a political choice as to where on the spectrum you choose to put your line.”

On the subject of face masks, Vallance told the committee the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) thinks the evidence on masks preventing the spread of infection from one person to another is “marginal but positive”.

He added: “Masks may have a marginal positive effect in that situation, or face coverings of some sort might do.”

Vallance also discussed the two-metre social distancing rule, adding that it was “based on a probability”.

He added: “The evidence is – as far as you can get very firm evidence on this – is that essentially a minute at two metres’ contact is about the same risk as six seconds at one metre, so that gives you some idea of why the two metres becomes important.

“And the risk at one metre is about 10 to 30 times higher than the risk at two metres, so the distancing is an important part of this.

“Where, therefore, masks may have a role is in situations where distancing is not possible.”

Asked if there is anything he would have changed about how the outbreak was handled in the UK, Vallance told the committee: “I think that probably we, in the early phases, and I’ve said this before, I think if we’d managed to ramp up testing capacity quicker it would have been beneficial.”

He said, however, that testing is “just part of the system that you need to get right”.

England’s deputy chief medical officer, Dr Jenny Harries, said a balance had needed to be struck at the time depending on resources. But she told MPs that “if we had unlimited capacity, and the ongoing support beyond that, then we perhaps would choose a slightly different approach”.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Even the limited admissions here from Vallance and Harries seem damning. They as much as concede that they would have recommended different actions if government inaction had not led to restricted resources (including PPE) through lack of planning and preparation for a pandemic, and failure to implement test and trace at the beginning when it was capable of running the virus to ground.

      It appears that the consequences of government incompetence are built into “the science” that Johnson claims he is following: they partly determine what is possible.

      Johnson’s poor judgement and untimely inaction are covered, repackaged under a new skin and sold to us by ministers as “the science”.

      At least the scientists have let us in on it.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.